Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Yeah, the game where exactly one third of the range revealed so far (and half the models in the box) is women, and not creepy cheesecake women at that, is a fair target for diversity criticism. In this hobby. Totes.

Atlas Hugged posted:

This is a pretty stupid position. You have the obvious problem that just because other companies are worse doesn't mean that GW is fine. Both things can be bad for different reasons at the same time. I'm not going to give GW a pass just because they're marginally better than the competition. Especially not in this hobby.

I also don't cash checks on the future. You can have all the diverse concept art and promises for female sculpts in the world and it doesn't mean a drat thing if the only thing I can buy is either only dudes or the token all-girls faction. We all want GW to follow through, but when they're only releasing a new faction every quarter and the first expansion faction was already done before they realized that their customers might be interested in having women in their gangs, that means it's going to be nearly half a year before we get any regular women in the game.

You're right that there are a substantial number of women models available and that's objectively a good thing, but actually look at what the criticism is. It's not the sculpts. It's that GW did nothing, yet, to counter-balance the legacy fluff from the 80s and 90s that said girls can only be in the all-girls faction and no where else. Apparently this is going to change. But I still have to say "apparently" because until such a time that I can make that purchase it isn't true.

Hamshot posted:

Pwoor, that really is some reaching you're doing there pal. 1/2 of the starter box doesn't make a token faction, dismissing future plans as not counting is just moving the goalposts, and your pathological hatred for GW doesn't really belong in this thread.

Xarbala posted:

Safety Factor posted:

Not this again.

Atlas Hugged posted:

That's misreading what I meant by token, but it's not like you ever actually read what I write. I'm also not the one moving the goalposts. I'm doing the exact opposite of that thing you're saying I'm doing. I'm saying right now there are no mixed gender gangs and there's no way to purchase one and that's what I'm being critical of. All my original post said was that it's good GW have acknowledged this but it hasn't changed yet.

I didn't bring up the topic. I just replied to a discussion that was already happening, but whatever.

Hamshot posted:

Ah yes, the whole "didn't read what i wrote" defense, the last refuge of the man who is out of anything to say. Right before commenting on my comments about your comments too.

Please, stop making GBS threads up every thread but the mantic one.

Atlas Hugged posted:

It's weird how personal you make this every single time I make a post.

Safety Factor posted:

Not this again.

Xarbala posted:

Okay, that's it, pistols at dawn

Fathis Munk posted:

WTF is it with all the GW apologists recently?

Hamshot posted:

There's a great many lovely things GW does. The predatory and creepy way their management and single-man store employees operate, their lack of commitment to certain lines and armies, their inconsistent prices across territories, the shitshow that was inferno, how overpriced their kits are, how grossly overpriced and their paintbrushes and paints are, and how they gutted fantasy and shat all over fans of that setting.

Then you get shitlords like Atlas Shrugged swooping in to crow about petulant bullshit that aren't even the real issues, when confronted dropping to petty and trite arguments at the hope they drag someone else down to their level and beat them with experience, making GBS threads up completely unrelated threads like this one.

Moola posted:

whoa where'd all the MRA twats come from all of a sudden?

goatface posted:

Warhams. Warhams never changes.

SiKboy posted:

Or, and consider this for a second, maybe they have a reasonable and not particularly controversial point, one faction and only one faction having women is exactly tokenism like they said, and you are having a hysterical meltdown over someone having a different opinion of one aspect of toy army mans from a widely acknowledged Bad Company, and you need to stop following them around screaming and flailing wildly because it makes you look like a loving mentalist. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Hamshot posted:

Woah woah woah, settle down sparky. Hysterical meltdown? Following them to this thread that should be completely unrelated to gw-is-a-bad-company discussion? Mentalist? Touch a nerve, did I?

Fathis Munk posted:

You suck.

Hamshot posted:

goatface posted:

Nah, it would just end up full of gundams again.

Fathis Munk posted:

WTF is it with all the GW apologists recently?

SiKboy posted:

Or, and consider this for a second, maybe they have a reasonable and not particularly controversial point, one faction and only one faction having women is exactly tokenism like they said, and you are having a hysterical meltdown over someone having a different opinion of one aspect of toy army mans from a widely acknowledged Bad Company, and you need to stop following them around screaming and flailing wildly because it makes you look like a loving mentalist. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Soulfucker posted:

Moola posted:

Moola posted:

Moola posted:

Broken Record Talk posted:

Until 49.6% of models are female, I will continue to complain on the internet. I want what I want!!!

Broken Record Talk posted:

I suddenly have a strong desire to build a few squads of 'crons like this...

Moola posted: